A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 01:25 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 01:16 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not sure because you only accept truth through a limited perspective and require morality to be objective in order to be useful.


I don't require morality to be anything. I don't find myself confronting someone's moral transgressions, having to establish that morality is objective, that truth is self-evident, in real world moral dilemmas, for all participants. You'd probably have to have very little human interactions, deal with very few relational conflicts to believe otherwise.

Quote:The simple observation that different societies have different sets of morals and that those morals evolve through time, is an indication that subjective and relative morality is a system that improves by evolving. But you can't see that because...god

And different societies have different sets of truths as well, often holding different takes on the nature of reality itself, at the same time different cultures hold a variety of similar moral beliefs, just like they hold similar truths. If you asked every civilizations and culture to pen down their 10 most important moral commandments, what you'd find is a great deal of homogeny between them, in spite of their differences.

What you find when you do fMRI scans, is that people's brains react the same way across cultures to ethical problems.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
03-01-2016, 01:25 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:59 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 12:41 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I'm fairly certain jesus would not approve of this post...

Pops isn't a Christian though. He had some sort of personal delusion experience and has created his own personal theology.
I am of the Christian Faith, among others. The cursing and insistence that one should die if they felt so compelled were uncalled for. I'm not perfect.

I have not "made up" anything. I do have limits at times though. Not justifying so much as explaining.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:25 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 11:33 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I disagree. I don't believe that anything is wrong (nor right for that matter).

How do you know that it's wrong? Can you prove it?

No I don't think I can prove it anymore so than I can prove to a solipsist that a reality outside of his own mind is sure to exist. In fact on the argument of objective morality, I'd find myself in the same position if the question was about objective truth, asked by someone who believes truth is subjective.

But I do have a question as to how your own nihilism is workable. Lets say you have children, let's say your son is verbally abusing another child, participating in bully another kid, perhaps his teachers even turn a blind eye here.

Do you avoid using the word "wrong"? Do you avoid telling them that's it wrong, because of your moral nihilism?

Or would you tell them something along the lines, that it bother daddy's sensibilities, feeling, so they should avoid doing it because it upsets you? etc..?

Depends....

My wife is about 7 weeks pregnant with our first, so this is something I will have to work out.

I might say something like, "you should be nice to other children because you want them to be nice to you, and the best way to get people to be nice to you is to be nice to them."

We'll probably do the whole Santa Claus thing too...."be nice because Santa's watching etc..."

Probably be some "be nice because I said so dammit!", as well.

When my child does become old enough to understand, I would explain that as far as I can tell, there is no right or wrong way to live your life. I would be honest and tell him/her that no one has answers to the big questions...such as: Why are we here? What are we supposed to do with our lives? etc... And that for all we know, there might not be answers to such questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
03-01-2016, 01:28 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 01:05 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 12:59 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Pops isn't a Christian though. He had some sort of personal delusion experience and has created his own personal theology.

So..... He's his own god? Blink
I am Noone.

Equivalent to nothing but what God has imparted. I am not God in any way shape or form. The things that have been shown to me are by the will of God, thankfully, somewhat regardless of my own will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:28 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 01:16 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not sure because you only accept truth through a limited perspective and require morality to be objective in order to be useful.


I don't require morality to be anything. I don't find myself confronting someone's moral transgressions, having to establish that morality is objective, that truth is self-evident, in real world moral dilemmas, for all participants. You'd probably have to have very little human interactions, deal with very few relational conflicts to believe otherwise.

Quote:The simple observation that different societies have different sets of morals and that those morals evolve through time, is an indication that subjective and relative morality is a system that improves by evolving. But you can't see that because...god

And different societies have different sets of truths as well, often holding different takes on the nature of reality itself, at the same time different cultures hold a variety of similar moral beliefs, just like they hold similar truths. If you asked every civilizations and culture to pen down their 10 most important moral commandments, what you'd find is a great deal of homogeny between them, in spite of their differences.

What you find when you do fMRI scans, is that people's brains react the same way across cultures to ethical problems.

You're equating morality with "truth?" Laughat

The observation that one could objectively discover the elements (or any other truthful observation of reality) in no way demonstrates that morality isn't subjective and relative. That's a false dichotomy.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
03-01-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 01:07 PM)julep Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 10:41 AM)unfogged Wrote:  He doesn't watch videos. Facepalm

Doesn't watch videos? Pops told me a while back that virtually all of his scientific knowledge and education had come through watching TV specials and videos (as opposed to books or classrooms).

Consider
Wow, no don't watch videos on phone due to data.

My speaking of science videos on tv was a reference to past learning, as I generally don't watch too much tv anymore.
Still read though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:34 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 01:16 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But not because it was fun. In fact what you find in cultures that practiced such things as child sacrifices, is that these practices were often justified by lies, and delusions, like scapegoating. Their particular children, often handicapped, or impaired, were deemed cursed, and less than human. They often involved these elaborate and false justifications, to render the act palpable, to forgo any moral pangs, and confronting the reality of what they were doing.


I'm not sure how we're suppose to work out a better system of morals, by rendering morality as subjective.

You're not sure because you only accept truth through a limited perspective and require morality to be objective in order to be useful.

The simple observation that different societies have different sets of morals and that those morals evolve through time, is an indication that subjective and relative morality is a system that improves by evolving. But you can't see that because...god

When you say "system that improves by evolving", what exactly do you mean?

For example, do you mean that abolishment of slavery was an improvement?

For that to be the case, it seems like it would have to be a fact that slavery should be abolished, which could only be consistent with moral realism. Unless I'm missing something....Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:38 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 01:34 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 01:16 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not sure because you only accept truth through a limited perspective and require morality to be objective in order to be useful.

The simple observation that different societies have different sets of morals and that those morals evolve through time, is an indication that subjective and relative morality is a system that improves by evolving. But you can't see that because...god

When you say "system that improves by evolving", what exactly do you mean?

For example, do you mean that abolishment of slavery was an improvement?

For that to be the case, it seems like it would have to be a fact that slavery should be abolished, which could only be consistent with moral realism. Unless I'm missing something....Consider

You're missing a lot because you're assuming only your view can be correct.

Views begin to change on slavery in a society. Slavery begins to be seen as immoral whereas it was once seen as moral by the population. Then laws change on slavery after the moral question of slavery changes from moral to immoral.

In retrospect (for a society with these evolved views on slavery), slavery was obviously immoral and something one ought not do whereas it was once something one ought to do if you required labor to bring your crops to harvest.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:39 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
You can see the conflict of these evolving views in the writings and actions of the founding fathers with respect to the moral question of slavery in the US.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 01:42 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  that truth is self-evident, in real world moral dilemmas, for all participants.
But of course this isn't the case.
You no doubt believe that it is immoral to blaspheme your beloved god.
For the billions of people that do not believe in your god, we see that no moral transgressions are made when doing this.

For billions of people, even including many Christians, we see that no moral transgressions are made when working on the week-end.

For billions of people, even including many Christians, we see that no moral transgressions are made when having sex without the intent for making babies.

For billions of people, even including many Christians, we see that no moral transgressions are made when gay people have gay sex.

For billions of people, even including many Christians, we see that no moral transgressions are made when performing abortions.

Self-evident - My Arse!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: